Relating to the OP, I was directed to a video of an anti-Semitic sheikh, Sharif Hussein, praying for the death of Buddhists, Hindus, and President Obama. Here's a link to the video, and here's a news article about it.

Modus.Ponens wrote:And I also realized something in the meantime, reading your post. Since islamophobia is prevalent in the world, if decent people deny their islamophobia, only the undecent people will express it. And that's very dangerous because fascists don't bother separating the human being, and his/her fundamental and undeniable human rights, from the religion that that human being has. If more decent people are involved in telling the truth it's more likely to exist a reasonable and considerate response to this problem _ as opposed to the fascists' way.

It might not even be fair to label a rational wariness of Islam as a "phobia." It should be called something else. But I agree with the last point. A distinction has to be made between Muslims and Islam. Condemn the ideas, not the people.

mettafuture wrote:Relating to the OP, I was directed to a video of an anti-Semitic sheikh, Sharif Hussein, praying for the death of Buddhists, Hindus, and President Obama. Here's a link to the video, and here's a news article about it.

Modus.Ponens wrote:And I also realized something in the meantime, reading your post. Since islamophobia is prevalent in the world, if decent people deny their islamophobia, only the undecent people will express it. And that's very dangerous because fascists don't bother separating the human being, and his/her fundamental and undeniable human rights, from the religion that that human being has. If more decent people are involved in telling the truth it's more likely to exist a reasonable and considerate response to this problem _ as opposed to the fascists' way.

It might not even be fair to label a rational wariness of Islam as a "phobia." It should be called something else. But I agree with the last point. A distinction has to be made between Muslims and Islam. Condemn the ideas, not the people.

You're moving in the right direction, mettafuture Now, just why do you want to condemn the religion wholesale? Do you also condemn Christianity wholesale? You should, because Islam today is in many ways very similar to the mainstream Christianity of a few hundred years ago and the fringe Christianity of today, and if you're condemning Islam wholesale you're saying that it can't grow beyond its intolerance.

Kim OHara wrote:You're moving in the right direction, mettafuture Now, just why do you want to condemn the religion wholesale? Do you also condemn Christianity wholesale? You should, because Islam today is in many ways very similar to the mainstream Christianity of a few hundred years ago and the fringe Christianity of today, and if you're condemning Islam wholesale you're saying that it can't grow beyond its intolerance.

Kim

The old testament is as bad as the quran (and if you really want to be amazed, read the hadiths). The thing is that christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. So it's harder to categorise a religion that has two very distinct set of teachings _ the old and the new testament _ as a singular body. With islam, that doesn't happen. It comes straight from mohammed, who claimed that he was receiving the words of god through an angel. And that difference is fulcral. Although christians can ignore the old testament with a bit of resistence, there is no way for a muslim to deny what's in all their canonical scriptures _ or, to be more precise, the quran and the sahih (sound) hadiths.

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

Kim OHara wrote:You're moving in the right direction, mettafuture Now, just why do you want to condemn the religion wholesale? Do you also condemn Christianity wholesale? You should, because Islam today is in many ways very similar to the mainstream Christianity of a few hundred years ago and the fringe Christianity of today, and if you're condemning Islam wholesale you're saying that it can't grow beyond its intolerance.

Kim

The old testament is as bad as the quran (and if you really want to be amazed, read the hadiths). The thing is that christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. So it's harder to categorise a religion that has two very distinct set of teachings _ the old and the new testament _ as a singular body. With islam, that doesn't happen. It comes straight from mohammed, who claimed that he was receiving the words of god through an angel. And that difference is fulcral. Although christians can ignore the old testament with a bit of resistence, there is no way for a muslim to deny what's in all their canonical scriptures _ or, to be more precise, the quran and the sahih (sound) hadiths.

On the other hand, they can do the sensible thing and downplay or totally ignore the scriptures they disagree with, just as the rest of us do. I've been using Christianity as a convenient comparison and I could do so again but I will be more ecumenical and ask you to think about how many Western Buddhists are practising homosexuals (forbidden) and how many Jews eat pork (forbidden) or marry outside the faith.Or I could use the argument from statistics: how many Muslims have not attacked Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in the last year? How many Muslims live quiet, moral, law-abiding lives rather than going on jihad?

mettafuture wrote:Basically, while there may be violent Buddhists, I don't believe a "violent Buddhism" exists.

If there is no such thing as "violent Buddhism", then how can there be "violent Buddhists"?

If a person practices Buddhism, then that person is a Buddhist, and if Buddhism isn't violent, then a person practicing Buddhism cannot be violent either.

It's just that a particular person might not be practicing Buddhism 24/7 and/or not perfectly. So on the grounds can be label that person a "Buddhist"?The label "Buddhist" (or any other label) leads us to think that that label defines a person's identity 24/7. Upon some consideration, we see that is not correct.

I seriously doubt a protective chant would have much effect on someone who's chasing you down with a machete trying to cut your head off.

Have you ever tried to chant a protective chant when in a dangerous situation?

Kim OHara wrote:On the other hand, they can do the sensible thing and downplay or totally ignore the scriptures they disagree with, just as the rest of us do. I've been using Christianity as a convenient comparison and I could do so again but I will be more ecumenical and ask you to think about how many Western Buddhists are practising homosexuals (forbidden) and how many Jews eat pork (forbidden) or marry outside the faith.Or I could use the argument from statistics: how many Muslims have not attacked Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in the last year? How many Muslims live quiet, moral, law-abiding lives rather than going on jihad?

Kim

I was going to try to respond to your argument, but instead I'm going straight to the heart of the matter. Since you are buddhist I assume you don't believe in god. Therefore either you believe that mohammed was talking with some kind of deva or that he invented the whole thing. Being completely honest, which one you think is more likely? Exactly. Now why do you need to defend those "teachings"?

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

binocular wrote:It's just that a particular person might not be practicing Buddhism 24/7 and/or not perfectly. So on the grounds can we label that person a "Buddhist"?

There may be moments when a Buddhist isn't behaving very Buddhist-like, but if they've taken refuge in the Triple Gem, and want to follow the Eightfold Path (despite failing to do so), I believe they could still be considered Buddhists.

Have you ever tried to chant a protective chant when in a dangerous situation?

Thousands of Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the last 800 years. I would bet at least one of them tried a protective chant.

mettafuture wrote:There may be moments when a Buddhist isn't behaving very Buddhist-like, but if they've taken refuge in the Triple Gem, and want to follow the Eightfold Path (despite failing to do so), I believe they could still be considered Buddhists.

Then why not make the same concession for Muslims?The Koran gives a variety of instructions for how to deal with non-Muslisms, to the point that with it, it is possible to justify both a hostile, as well as a peaceful attitude toward non-Muslims.

Kafir and Jihad

For dealing with non-Muslims, Jasser Auda, a director of the al-Maqasid Research Centre in the Philosophy of the Islamic Law in London, England, says that the general rule is mentioned in the verse that says what means:

"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." ([Quran 60:8])

Birr in this context is likened to birr al-walidain, the kindness that a Muslim should show to his or her parents.[28] This quote addresses the relationship between the concepts of kafir and jihad in Islam.

While the Qur'anic statement of peace towards non-Muslims and non-believers is implied within this passage, the practical sense of jihad in Islam is derived from the example of the Prophet Muhammad. A. Ghosh, author of The Koran and the kafir cites the Prophet's war against the Qurayza Jewish tribe in 627 A.D. and subsequent wars of the caliphate as the starting point for a pattern of "jihad" which he translates as, "holy war," against the infidel in the Muslim religion.[29]However, the research of Dr. Sherman Jackson suggests a separation between the classical terms of "jihad" and the modern interpretations of "jihad." According to Jackson, both the Qur'an and classical interpretations of jihad show that "a perennial 'state of war'" existed, where in which the "assumed relationship" between neighboring tribes was one of hostility, while in the modern world the "assumed relationship" illustrates a state of peace unless provoked by the other party.[30]Thus, although “jihad” was often painted as a “holy war” against infidels, the historical and cultural backgrounds of the Muslims involved in “jihad” must be taken into consideration.[31]

mettafuture wrote:There may be moments when a Buddhist isn't behaving very Buddhist-like, but if they've taken refuge in the Triple Gem, and want to follow the Eightfold Path (despite failing to do so), I believe they could still be considered Buddhists.

Then why not make the same concession for Muslims?

Because the scriptural foundation of Islam is the Quran. If someone chooses to commit one of the many hostile acts authorized by the Quranic suras, that person is behaving completely in accordance with Islamic teachings.

mettafuture wrote:Thousands of Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the last 800 years.

How Buddhist are we going to be about this?Are we going to allow for the Buddhist (!) teaching on karma and rebirth to enter our considerations of these things?

What if in a previous lifetime, the roles were reversed?What if the Muslims who now kill Buddhists were in a previous lifetime Buddhists who killed Muslims, or any other beings?Or what if in a previous lifetime, they both were of some other religions, but were into doing harm, so this time around, their karma from back then is coming to fruition?Or what if the whole thing has nothing to do with religion, but with, say, someone who was a butcher in a previous lifetime now gets killed by the beings he killed?

The possible scenarios of karma and rebirth that may have led o the current situation are many. The idea isn't to try to figure out what exactly may have happened in a previous lifetime, but to offer a different perspective on the situation.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse anyone's violence against anyone. It's just that if we are going to be Buddhist about these things, then we might as well go all the way and include consideration of karma and rebirth into our analysis of the situation.

mettafuture wrote:Thousands of Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the last 800 years.

How Buddhist are we going to be about this?Are we going to allow for the Buddhist (!) teaching on karma and rebirth to enter our considerations of these things?

What if in a previous lifetime, the roles were reversed?What if the Muslims who now kill Buddhists were in a previous lifetime Buddhists who killed Muslims, or any other beings?Or what if in a previous lifetime, they both were of some other religions, but were into doing harm, so this time around, their karma from back then is coming to fruition?Or what if the whole thing has nothing to do with religion, but with, say, someone who was a butcher in a previous lifetime now gets killed by the beings he killed?

The possible scenarios of karma and rebirth that may have led o the current situation are many. The idea isn't to try to figure out what exactly may have happened in a previous lifetime, but to offer a different perspective on the situation.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse anyone's violence against anyone. It's just that if we are going to be Buddhist about these things, then we might as well go all the way and include consideration of karma and rebirth into our analysis of the situation.

I'm not sure how "What if" speculation about other lives is relevant, because the Buddha said in AN 4.77 that the precise working out of the results of kamma is an unconjecturable "that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

Aloka wrote: I'm not sure how "What if" speculation about other lives is relevant, because the Buddha said in AN 4.77 that the precise working out of the results of kamma is an unconjecturable "that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

Already addressed elsewhere recently:

binocular wrote:With karma, there are two teachings that seem to be at odds:

One is from the sutta on the unconjecturables, namely, that the exact workings of karma are not to be speculated about.

The other is on this/that conditionality, and the instruction to reflect on one's actions and their consequences (such as in the instructions to Rahula) that suggests there is a causal relationship and that we can get insight into it.

I don't think the two teachings are mutually exclusive. While one might certainly not be able to have full insight into the workings of karma at all times, that doesn't mean that the whole principle of reflecting on actions and their consequences should be dismissed.

Personally, I find that the very act of reflecting on possible cause-effect scenarios is enough to lead to dispassion and to a calmer approach to the situation.

Aloka wrote: I'm not sure how "What if" speculation about other lives is relevant, because the Buddha said in AN 4.77 that the precise working out of the results of kamma is an unconjecturable "that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

binocular wrote:Already addressed elsewhere recently:

binocular wrote:Personally, I find that the very act of reflecting on possible cause-effect scenarios is enough to lead to dispassion and to a calmer approach to the situation.

Ok, so "what if" they were all caterpillars and Blue-Tits in past lives - I'm baffled as to how that addresses the present situation between Buddhists and Muslims, or indeed, the actual OP #1.

Kim OHara wrote:On the other hand, they can do the sensible thing and downplay or totally ignore the scriptures they disagree with, just as the rest of us do. I've been using Christianity as a convenient comparison and I could do so again but I will be more ecumenical and ask you to think about how many Western Buddhists are practising homosexuals (forbidden) and how many Jews eat pork (forbidden) or marry outside the faith.Or I could use the argument from statistics: how many Muslims have not attacked Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in the last year? How many Muslims live quiet, moral, law-abiding lives rather than going on jihad?

Kim

I was going to try to respond to your argument, but instead I'm going straight to the heart of the matter. Since you are buddhist I assume you don't believe in god. Therefore either you believe that mohammed was talking with some kind of deva or that he invented the whole thing. Being completely honest, which one you think is more likely? Exactly. Now why do you need to defend those "teachings"?

I don't defend the teachings. I defend the people who (mostly) were born to them, grew up with them and live (mostly) reasonably moral and honest lives - just as I defend the people who grew up with Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion, whether I believe their religion or not.

Respond to my argument if you like - I'm curious as to how you would go about it.

Kim OHara wrote:On the other hand, they can do the sensible thing and downplay or totally ignore the scriptures they disagree with, just as the rest of us do. I've been using Christianity as a convenient comparison and I could do so again but I will be more ecumenical and ask you to think about how many Western Buddhists are practising homosexuals (forbidden) and how many Jews eat pork (forbidden) or marry outside the faith.Or I could use the argument from statistics: how many Muslims have not attacked Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in the last year? How many Muslims live quiet, moral, law-abiding lives rather than going on jihad?

Kim

I was going to try to respond to your argument, but instead I'm going straight to the heart of the matter. Since you are buddhist I assume you don't believe in god. Therefore either you believe that mohammed was talking with some kind of deva or that he invented the whole thing. Being completely honest, which one you think is more likely? Exactly. Now why do you need to defend those "teachings"?

I don't defend the teachings. I defend the people who (mostly) were born to them, grew up with them and live (mostly) reasonably moral and honest lives - just as I defend the people who grew up with Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion, whether I believe their religion or not.

Respond to my argument if you like - I'm curious as to how you would go about it.

Kim

Well then we agree, to a point. And the problem with leting the right wing explore islamophobia is things like the war in Iraq, or the war in Afganistan. That's tragic. Americans probably don't like to think about this but, although 3000 people died in the twin towers atack, and it was tragic, the most conservative estimate for the number of iraqis killed is about 110 000 (the Lancet, a very respectable scientific publication, estimated about 600 000 deaths). In other words, it was like at least 36 twin towers atacks there. And there was absolutely no reason for the american population to allow this other than islamophobia. Many people were against that war, but not enough. I know you're australian, but this is a consequence of only leting fascists say what we all feel, to some degree. The fascists don't care about the human beings. At all.

But in response to your previous argument, they could do the sensible thing. But a lot of them don't. And radicalism seems to be spreading, at least in the middle east. How can this be dealt with?

Homosexuality is only forbidden in tibetan buddhism, afaik. And i think it's not even an imperative. What I know is that some of them think that homosexual acts (or even oral sexual acts between heterosexuals) lead to imbalance in the energy system. But I'm not aware of it saying anywhere that homosexuals should be killed, or some nonsense like that. But anyway, that's a good point. Let me tell you: the muslims who completely ignore the violent parts of the quran and hadiths are among the nicest people out there. And if islam could be turned into that, it would be a very positive force in the world. But in the present I don't think it is interpreted that way by too many muslims. And I don't know what the hell should we do except telling the truth with carefulness _ something that I very often wasn't able to do.

Those would be useful statistics to assess the situation. But it has to go a little deeper. How many muslims, although do not participate in violent acts, agree with them? This is very tricky and I don't know how to really deal with this. I only know that the present day attitude isn't working.

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

There have been some comments indicating that since the Bible contains a lot of saber rattling and war making that Christians can be said to be part of a religion which advocates violence in the same way that Islamic scriptures advocates violence. I think this sentiment comes from a lack of understanding of the structure of the Bible.

The Bible has two parts namely the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is mainly about Jewish history and how the Jews believed that a great prophet or savior would be born into Jewish society and that this savior would lead Judaism into a new era. The New Testament is about Jesus of Nazareth being the long promised prophet predicted by the Jews in the Old Testament and the doctrine which Jesus taught and how his early followers organized themselves and some of their communications.

The Old Testament is the part of the Bible with the references to violence and wars....it is about the history of Judaism and it is included in the Bible as an introduction for the coming of a savior......which Christians take to be Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament does not contain any of the doctrine which Jesus of Nazareth taught.....the violence and wars of the Old Testament is NOT what Jesus of Nazareth taught.

The New Testament is the part of the Bible containing the doctrine which Jesus of Nazareth taught. Many Jews were expecting the savior to be a mighty warrior who would raise a big army and then go and fight a righteous war......they were very disappointed with Jesus in that he taught love, compassion, and non-violence.....they openly talked about how Jesus could not be their savior as he was not advocating wielding of power much less wielding it himself. There are a few quotes from the New Testament which I think we're meant to be poetic in nature and which might be construed to be violent....I forget what they are but it seems like many people are quick to point them out as if it proved that Jesus taught violence but if you read the New Testament in full it is obvious that Jesus did not advocate violence or war.

I hope I have clearly shown that the doctrine taught by Jesus of Nazareth did not condone violence or war and also how it is that some people have come to the wrong conclusion that Christian doctrine includes fighting righteous wars. In my view to say that Christianity and Islam are similar in that their main prophets both advocated war is wrong as the doctrine taught by Jesus of Nazareth was markedly non-violent.....remember "turn the other cheek"?

This is not to say that all Christians follow the doctrines that Jesus of Nazareth taught......what I am saying is that the doctrine which Jesus of Nazareth taught does not condone and even condemns the many violent acts perpetrated by Christians in the name of their religion.chownah

Half of the Quran is devoted to the words and stories of Jesus(Issa), I don't think any of you have actually read it, like I said before if you quote texts out of context you can get the same level of negative messages from the bible.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

Invective rhetoric and off-topic comparative religion discussions can happen elsewhere than this thread, which has a carefully defined OP, friends.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]